Pan's Labyrinth

Hairy Lime said:
it's important to acknowledge the difference between your own personal preference and the artistic ability of the filmmaker you're critiquing.
Click to expand...
Hairy Lime i think neither of these things have anything to do with critiquing film. your personal preference or the artistic ability of a filmaker. That is why there are horrible movies that i love and great movies i hate. Also great movies by not so good directors and horrible movies by great directors.

this is at least how i do it
(i think there is only the movie) without anything before it or after. (hype or bad critic should be agnored) i look at it technically then its job. tehnically = was it lit well, camerawork etc. Then its job, did these tehnically things help the story. then what i think the story is saying and did all of these elements do that.

i think pans labrinyth did this. i think babel did in places but not as a whole.

as for the people in pans layrinyth being symbols, yes i agree with sean. they are unreal. but they serve the purpose. thats there job to contrast each other.

Maybe im in the minority but the people i know didnt really feel babel works. Some people i know loved it but still didnt feel it worked. 2 different things.

When i saw babel Alejandro González Iñárritu was there and talked about the film and what he was trying to do. i feel he succeed with some things and not with others. When i saw "pan's labrinth" del toro was there and i feel his film did what he said he was trying to do.

on there other side, when i comes to liking a movie or not, there is a totally different way of thinking. i wish i didnt see babel. other people wish they didnt see pan's lab.
and thats cool:)
sorry this was way too long, like babel (joking)
 
Last edited:
someone above made a statement that you cannot critique a movie by saying what you would've done differently. That you should instead judge the movie for what it is.

I don't know how you can critique a film without discussing the choices of the filmmaker.

Filmmaking is a series of thousands of choices. There is a decision behind every single thing you see in a film. Therefore, if you didn't like something, you're disagreeing with the choice the filmmaker made. Now as far as these choices, if you encounter one you disagree with you can say, "I didn't like that", and move on. But if the filmmaker failed in that choice, it means there were a million other options they could've used instead. Discussing these options is a natural byproduct of one's initial reaction: "Okay, that didn't work. Why?"

As far as Deedive's claim that Del Torro acheived everything he was trying to do - well, unless he went down a point-by-point list of strictly technical things he was trying to acheive whose success could be proven, chances are his level of success is up for debate. If you could relate what he said, I'll tell you whether or not I believe he acheived them. But my guess is it still comes down to opinion.
 
Last edited:
c.g._eads said:
someone above made a statement that you cannot critique a movie by saying what you would've done differently. That you should instead judge the movie for what it is.
Click to expand...
Who said that? My point, which was made clearly, was that you should judge a film on its own terms. Innaritu wanted to make a multi-story drama about absent fathers and the inability to communicate. Does Babel achieve that? Sure you can say, "It might have worked better if he'd done X, Y, and Z." But to say, "It shouldn't have been multi-story" or "They didn't even need the Japanese story" changes the movie so completely that the artist's vision would no longer be intact.
 
**** MAJOR SPOILER -- please don't read if you haven't seen the movie ****

In continuing to think about why Pan's Labyrinth failed for me, one key factor came to mind: I was never moved. I was grossed out. I felt some tension. I felt in awe of some of the beautiful fantasy imagery. But when the filmmaker makes you invest all your energy in a few characters and then kills them all off, and you don't even get a lump in your throat...I mean, isn't that failed? If you're more "stunned" or taken aback that the event happened rather than actually emotionally moved means, for me, that I wasn't invested in the dramatic storyline at all. I can watch a good sappy TV commercial and be more moved by the "sad part." Pan's didn't take me there at all. I was just like, "Oh...damn, oh well, that was weird." I mean, it's not like killing off the token Guy #3 in the first act here. We're watching someone we're supposed to love being offed.
 
sean then i recomend a little love story named "salo" and a romantic comedy name "irreversible". i Think u will love them as much as pan.
 
sean90291 said:
I just loved Babel. I thought it was brilliant and original. The dramatic component in Pan's Labyrinth felt TV movie to me because of the un-nuanced extremes of bad guy and good guy. It was a fairy tale I realize, and good is good and evil is evil.
Click to expand...

you go a long way toward comparing two movies which, in style and story, are very different.

i've never been one to compare movies from separate genres, so i guess it's hard for me to see your side of the argument.

as for the all evil/all good aspect. . . i think pan's labyrinth had more subtlety to offer than you give it credit for. take into consideration the time and place when looking at the captain's character. for a man of his generation he is remarkably sane. he did what he had to do to ensure his family and his bloodline would continue. he followed orders, he was a good soldier. . . he was sinister but totally believable.

nazis had children who loved them, too. . .i'm just saying i didn't see it as black and white as you did.

the character of the maid wasn't pure good, neither was the mother. . .neither was the child if you get right down to it. and i guess that's why i found it so tragic. . .it all boiled down to each character's survival and what they were willing to do in order to achieve it.
 
I have been a casual fan of Del Toro for a few years, and when I came across the trailer on Apple's site I was pretty stoked to see the flick. And I definitely made time to see it when it made it to Nebraska this month. Many people have commented on the film so far, but I'd like to drop my opinion into the fray, so here's hoping ya'll don't mind!

First and foremost, I love fantasy film that is done well. Being a visual artist I will see some films solely to explore what areas people are exploring visually. And this film was very interesting for me to watch. What I love about Del Toro is that he enjoys making films with an almost over-the-top or comic-style grit to them. The faun met by Ofelia was particularly well-designed, and was one of my favorite characters. Without the faun, I may not have been as excited about the viewing. So, kudos to those folks who worked with Del Toro on the design and execution of the art in the film. I ate it up like a kid in a candy store.

Secondly, the relatively intense violence that was periodic within the film was appreciated, simply because I felt that the film was gauged towards people of my age. It is rare to see a fantastic (fantasy-based) story that can incorporate this.

Also, I don't think Del Toro is asking viewers to treat the film as anything more than it is, and what it is turns out to be a story of one young girl's methods for dealing with instability and trauma in her life. I didn't feel as if my intelligence was challenged, or that the director had any sort of intense conceptual issues to present.

If you enjoy an interesting story with some very fresh and well-done visuals, check out the film. If not, well, cheers, and have a beer!
 
I've been reading some of the posts. Some people expected more out of the film, and some didn't connect to the characters or story. I think I understand this. I could see why some could love it, and some could feel left out.

In my opinion it's because it's simply... well... a fairy tale. A fairy tale never tries to be deep and meaningful, with complex characters and layer storylines. It's simple and straight forward. The captain is the monster. The girl is the princess. The rebels are the good guys. The monster locks up the princess. It's simple and meant to be nothing more.

What this does is simply to make you feel like a kid again, being told a bed time story, a fairy tale. You feel scared, you connect with the good guys, and despise the bad guys, and you want to pull the cover over your head when it gets to the terrible parts. I see the graphic parts to be nothing more than the same in a fairy tale. But to a kid, something that would make them want to pull the cover over their head (and the monster ate them whole in one big gulp!!!) doesn't hit us the way it does them.

Now some people were looking for a fairy tale in the most literal sense. It is, but not all with fairy's and magic. I suppose that's why some were dissapointed. As for the others that didn't enjoy it, perhaps because they are so used to having those complex characters and storylines, that something simple and basic just doesn't interest them.


I loved it because of it's simplicity. It's a dark adult fairy tale set in real life. Truly a brilliant piece of work that isn’t afraid to show the real world, real violence and true evil in its purest form. The two storylines are juxtapositions that work so well together, simply because they have nothing to do with each other, yet at the end the storylines joined in perfect unison creating one of the most beautiful endings I’ve ever seen.

My number 1 favorite movie…
 
Last edited:
After reading through this topic, I really wanna go see it to make my own opinion of it... It seems like something I may like.
 
Had to chime in on a few comments. First off, I really liked the movie. It was different, and felt original just becuase it didn't have a lot of the Hollywood cliches in it.

I read a comment here about the music not being good. Wha wha what? The music was brilliant, and perfectly executed. The latest movie I've seen where I was super disappointent in the music was Curse of the Golden Flower.

The biggest complaint I had about the movie was the very beginning shot of the film. It should have been omitted. There's a thread currently going on here about "too much story" and someone mentioned how the VO at the beginning of Dark City ruined the film becuase it explained everything and gave away too much foreshadowing. Same here. The biggest shocker of the film is shown during the first 30 seconds, so you know it's coming, and it ruins it in many aspects.

That aside, I loved the visuals and the feel. And the violence was so different just becuase it wasn't stylized or melo-dramatically done like it is in American films.
 
I posted this at some of my fav overclocking forums and the Spiderman fans almost hung me.

A certain film making fellow-user at one of the same above mentioned forums suggested I lurk around here a bit for a bit more ... I don't know ... how do you say ... meaningful discussion, of films and film making.

Thought I'd revive this thread with a copy of my original post, here:

:)

...

All these movie threads discussing so-so movies ...

Pirates of this and that ...

Eragon of the Rings, or whatever ...

Spiderman ...

...

But what about some seriously polemical cinema like Pan's Labyrinth?

You know ... something laden with irony and metaphor. Something that doesn't speak plainly but rather in a manner that requires some creativity to truly understand?

Not to diss the above mentioned movies ... I liked them all, but for the most part it was like masturbation ... you know what's coming and eventually it does.

But Pan's Labyrinth ... I just have to say ... is quite a master stroke by Guillermo De Toro ...

The whole Spanish civil war tip ... the brutality of it all ... and the kid trying to find some place from which to make sense everything ... the fairy tale ... ties to Roman mythology, ... all real or all imagined?

The tragic ending ...

And the whole thing narrated/spoken in such sensual and textured spanish ...

Man! What happened to films like this ... they come around so less often these days ...

(s1rrah gives it two thumbs up)

:thumbup::thumbup:
 
i thought this movie was very creative. loved the cinematography and music. the costumes for the monsters were spot on and very original. i love movies like this. we need more like them. :thumbup:
 
Kholi said:
Hey s1rrah, it's Audi from OCN.

Glad to see ya here!
Click to expand...

Yo mang!

(that pan's thread was getting pretty worked up over there, huh?)

Fun stuff. Intellectual and philosophical fight's are what make us better IMHO.

:)
 
David Jimerson said:
I actually thought the real-world story was far more interesting than the fantasy parts.
Click to expand...

I agree ...

In fact, it's the real world depicted in the film which actually makes the fantasy parts worth something.

...
 
It's hard for me to figure out if her fantasies are supposed to be the story, or if the real world is supposed to be the story. Meaning, not that the fantasy she's making up in her head is the main story, but that the fact that she's fantasizing to take herself away from the ugliness around her -- is that the throughline of the movie? If so, it's not as clear as it ought to be, because the real-world events seem to get more focus, and the fantasizing seems more like a subplot.
 
David Jimerson said:
It's hard for me to figure out if her fantasies are supposed to be the story, or if the real world is supposed to be the story. Meaning, not that the fantasy she's making up in her head is the main story, but that the fact that she's fantasizing to take herself away from the ugliness around her -- is that the throughline of the movie? If so, it's not as clear as it ought to be, because the real-world events seem to get more focus, and the fantasizing seems more like a subplot.
Click to expand...
Funny ... I totally understand what you mean.

Personally, and being a big fan of fantasy ... or, more succinctly, a fan of the hope that there's more to the world than what our eyes and ears can tell us, I have to say, I'm torn between treating it as a pure fantasy or a real-world-based metaphor which uses fantasy to get it's message across.

(Although, as a writer and content creator myself ... I confess to feeling whole-heartedly that the intention of the director was more so aimed at playing upon the more complex metaphor angle than the strict fantasy. But that's just the acadamecian in me ...) :)

It would be like comparing "The Sword and the Sorcerer" (circa early 80's) vs. Lord of the Rings: the former, quite obviously being a pure fantasy jaunt ... while the latter having quite complex and arguable metaphoric qualities relating to everything from Political Imperialism to the more obvious religious/archetypal references.

...

Your comment about the obviousness, or not so, of the childs conscious or unconscious fantasizing ... that it might not have been made clear enough ...

I don't know ... on one hand I agree the connection is vaguely represented (left up to, really, our own imagination as viewers); but on the other hand ... I agree with the director's brevity.

Having experienced first hand the power of childhood imagination (I was certainly a child once) ... it seems near on-point from the directors perspective that the fantasy segments should seem more real than fantastic. Or, at least, that the presentation of such should leave the adult viewer scratching his/her head wondering ... real? imagined? (Also, in the process, making us more like children ...)

:)

I mean, as a child ... the times when myself and others set sail on world traversing naval journeys, battled dragons or otherwise gave ourselves over, wholly, to imagination ... it sure seemed real enough to me. And, there was never any consideration of whether we were imagining correctly/incorrectly or any concern as to whether the adults around us would believe or be able to understand our imaginings.

Our imaginings were simply natural and totally organic insofar as co-existing with the "reality" of our normal and real world. And what's more, we generally kept such mental wanderings to ourselves!

There was never any conscious connection known by us which joined the reasons for our fantasy world with the actual circumstances of our 'real.'

So therefore, another way of looking at the lack of development regarding such connections ... is that the director wanted us to feel like the child.

...

Don't know though ... that could all be a bunch of gratuitous commentary nonsense ...

But what I *do* know ... film made me me think, which is a good thing ... and so for that I call it a success.

A difficult thing to watch for me ... some scenes were just a bit over the top (the stitches, the pistol whipping, etc.) ... but in the end, I think those bits of rather horrifically presented traumas are just as important to the films aims as were the child's fantasies ...

...

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top